Surinder Kaur vs State Of Haryana

MANISHA BATRA, J.(Oral)

Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS'), is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.386 dated 28.11.2025, registered under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 111, 340 and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS') and Section 82 of the Registration Act, 1908, at Police Station City Tohana, District Fatehabad (Annexure P-1).

The aforementioned FIR was registered on a letter dated 28.11.2025 of the Joint Sub-Registrar, Tohana, sent under the directions of the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Tohana, who had inquired into a complaint made by one Shubh Kamal. In the inquiry, the copy of sale deed No.1396 dated 28.09.1992, produced for registration of sale deed No.223 dated 23.04.2024, was found not to be in consonance with the record of that deed. The copy of sale deed No.1050 dated 12.06.1998, produced for registration of sale deed No.3285 dated 29.11.2024, was likewise found not to match the record. Sale deed No.1396 had purportedly been executed by one Tara Chand, as General Power of Attorney of Bakshi Ram, in favour of the petitioner (Annexure P-2). On its strength, the petitioner sold the land to co-accused Bittu, vide sale deed No.223. The FIR was registered against the petitioner and five others.

Co-accused Bittu was granted anticipatory bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, vide orders dated 16.12.2025 and 26.12.2025 (Annexures P-5 and P-6), whereas the application of the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 05.01.2026 (Annexure P-7). Hence, the present petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that she is a lady aged about 60 years with no criminal antecedents and has been falsely implicated in this case. She purchased the plot vide sale deed dated 28.09.1992 executed by Tara Chand as attorney of Bakshi Ram, and mutation No.96 stands in her name (Annexures P-2 and P-4). After more than 30 years, and without any complaint from Bakshi Ram or his legal heirs, she has been roped in merely on a suspicion raised by the revenue authorities. There is no handwriting expert's report or allegation of impersonation against her. A registered document is presumed to be validly executed, and the dispute is purely civil in nature. Co-accused Bittu, who derived title from the petitioner, has been granted anticipatory bail, and she cannot be placed on a worse footing. The petitioner has already joined the investigation in compliance with the order passed by this Court. Her custodial interrogation is not required. Hence, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

Per contra, learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has opposed the petition by arguing that the sale deed in question is based on four other sale deeds. The petitioner joined the investigation on 29.04.2026, but she did not cooperate in the same as she failed to hand over the original sale deed No.1396 dated 28.09.1992 to the Investigating Officer, despite taking several opportunities from this Court for the said purpose. The production of the said sale deed is necessary for a proper investigation. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

This Court has heard the rival submissions at considerable length, besides going through the material placed on record.

At the outset, it may be noticed that on 17.02.2026, while issuing notice of motion, a coordinate Bench of this Court directed that no coercive action be taken against the petitioner. On 11.03.2026, when the State sought time to file reply, another coordinate Bench granted her interim anticipatory bail, subject to her joining the investigation. Neither order expresses any view on the merits of the case. Vide order dated 08.09.2026, learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner was ready to hand over the original sale deed to the Investigating Officer, consequent to which, the petitioner was granted one more opportunity to join the investigation and hand over the requisite sale deed. Since then, she has availed several opportunities for the same but she has not done so.

Nothing has been placed on record to show that the original sale deed has been handed over to the Investigating Officer even now. Thus, despite enjoying interim protection for more than seven months, the petitioner has not fulfilled even the assurance given by her own counsel to this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the aforesaid fact.

Without commenting on the merits of the case, the importance of this document cannot be overlooked. The very basis of the FIR is that the copy of sale deed No.1396 produced at the time of registration of sale deed No.223 dated 23.04.2024 is not in consonance with the official record. The petitioner is the vendee under the deed of 1992, and she is also the vendor who relied upon it to sell the land in the year 2024. As per the order dated 26.12.2025 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Annexure P-6), the Investigating Officer reported that Tara Chand had denied executing this deed. The original deed is in the exclusive possession of the petitioner, and its genuineness cannot be verified without comparing it with the official record. Moreso, if the same is genuine, its production could only have helped her.

This Court is not compelling her to produce any document. The production was offered by her own counsel and she was granted time only on that offer. The only question is whether a person who seeks the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail, and who withholds the most vital document despite her own offer, deserves that relief?

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anna Waman Bhalerao v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 INSC 1114 upheld the refusal of anticipatory bail in a case of forged documents relating to land, observing as under:-

Similarly, in Pratibha Manchanda and another v. State of Haryana and another, 2023 INSC 612, where the original of an allegedly forged General Power of Attorney had not been recovered, the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the anticipatory bail granted by this Court. It was held that joining the investigation under the protective umbrella of pre-arrest bail would render the exercise of eliciting the truth ineffective in such cases.

The plea of parity with co-accused Bittu is also misconceived. As per the orders at Annexures P-5 and P-6, Bittu joined the investigation, and the Investigating Officer reported that his custodial interrogation was not required. The sale deeds in his favour were also not found to be forged. The petitioner, on the other hand, holds the very deed which is under a cloud, and she has not produced it. Her position is, therefore, materially different from that of Bittu.

In view of the above discussion, the present petition is dismissed, and the interim order dated 11.03.2026 stands vacated. However, nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.